Primary audience on the website are SP52948 owners (current and previous), tenants, investors, and potential buyers in strata complex.
Number of SP52948 owners, tenants, and investors expressed gratitude towards this website as that was the only way to gain access to lot of critical information, which is not available in minutes and notices of meetings, or on Waratah Strata website.
Public is voicing strong concerns about problems with Tribunals. Issues with strata complexes and dubious quality of services provided by those who should enforce laws are common and frequent.
The rest of the audience is anyone who might be interested in problems with strata schemes in NSW...
Democracy should be the leading avenue for managing strata complexes. But, democracy requires high level of sense and ethics, and right for all owners to have full access to strata files in order to make informed decisions. And when that does not happen, how to proceed? One way is to educate public and rise awareness that license to be a strata manager is one of the easiest in any industry: Strata Community Australia (SCA) are offering a three-day course on qualifying to be a strata manager with no prior educational requirements (apparently educational requirements are fulfilled by completing the course).
Major news on 14 May 2025: strata manager Michael Lee, featured in the Strata Trap report on ABC TV’s Four Corners, was the first in NSW to be banned for life from operating as a strata manager. Lee was also been fined $11,000, his company, Result Strata Management, had its licence cancelled and it fined $22,000. Lee who was just three days from the end of a four-month suspension issued in January, was the first strata manager in NSW to be “struck off” purely for the way they conducted their business. Lee was featured in the ABC report using hired “security” to prevent owners from entering the AGM to vote against him and his committee. Lee, an owner in the building, was its strata committee chairperson as well as its strata manager. After a long-running investigation, Fair Trading found that, under Lee’s direction, the company had failed to disclose conflicts of interest, consistently breached rules of conduct, charged fees for services not rendered, and failed to ensure that owners’ properties complied with critical fire and safety obligations. In addition, it did not provide information to owners when required, acted contrary to instructions given at general meetings, and failed to make sure a building had adequate insurance cover. As a result, he became the first strata manager to be banned for life.
Examples of legal cases terminated contracts with strata and building managers in Australia
The owner of the website was exposed to multiple threats and intimidation tactics by BCS Strata Management (until 31 January 2017) and Waratah Strata Management (since 1 February 2017), which included unsuccessful defamation attempts, false statements to owners in notices of the meetings, prevention of access to SP52948 strata documents (and even Strata Rolls), preventing the owner from conducting duties of committee member whilst allowing unfinancial owners to do it, supported verbal threats, stalking, and intimidation of the owners, and refusal to attend free mediations at NSW Fair Trading, whilst providing false statements to CTTT and NCAT through the same Solicitor.
There is no website which covers more detailed events related to strata issues with direct evidence than this one in Australia (trust through verification).
This website does not have any desire or intent to add own comments and therefore it is up to anybody to make up their own conclusions based on evidence and statements by others who did it in public forums, in courts, or elsewhere. All files on this website were provided to Fair Trading NSW, Office of Legal Services Commissioner, CTTT (now NCAT), District Court, Supreme Court, and Police.
Justice McCallum publicly stated:
Extensive media reporting of allegations of criminal conduct is not a mischief in itself. On the contrary, it is appropriate to recognise that the media play an important role in drawing attention to allegations of criminal or other misconduct and any shortcomings in the treatment of such allegations.
Barrister Julie Wright and her engagement as Supreme Court Costs Assessor
Barrister Julie Wright was contacted six times since her Supreme Court Cost Assessment, and each time, she declined to respond or take any action. Instead, her silence hampered investigations by New South Wales Bar Association and Office of Legal Services Commissioner.
Efforts to communicate with Barrister Julie Wright, which fell on her deaf ears:
- 24 May 2022
- 20 February 2024
- 21 February 2024
- 21 February 2024
- 12 June 2024
- 14 June 2024
On 14 November at attempt was also made to speak to Greenway Chambers where Barrister Julie Wright worked, but they also stayed silent. Greenway Chambers was warned that, whether by accident or intentionally, Barrister Julie Wright became an accessory to insurance fraud in NCAT case SC 20/33352. Greenway Chambers was also questioned whether their current clients or potential clients should be notified about the above.
Solicitor Adrian Mueller is an accessory to multiple crimes and Barrister Julie Wright helped him continue with such activities, causing significant financial losses to insurance company and SP52948 Lot 158. Some of examples that even layman could easily understand:
SP52948-discrepancies-between-Solicitor-Adrian-Mueller-legal-and-insurance-payments-FY-2022-and-2023
SP52948-scanned-submission-with-Statutory-Declaration-Lot-158-SCS-13/50737-18Dec2013
District-Court-case-13-360456-Lot-158-Affidavit-ignored-by-Solicitor-Adrian-Mueller-4Feb2014
SP52948-Lot-158-cost-submission-reply-ignored-by-Solicitor-Adrian-Mueller-in-Supreme-Court-27Feb2022
District-Court-case-13-360456-Lot-158-Affidavit-ignored-by-Solicitor-Adrian-Mueller-4Feb2014
Barrister Julie Wright's actions point towards serious breaches of sections 3.1, 4.1, 5.1, 6.1, and 7 of Legal Profession Uniform Law Australian Solicitors’ Conduct Rules 2015 under the LPUL.
On her employer’s website, it states:
Julie Wright specialises in civil litigation, with a focus on complex construction and commercial disputes, advocacy, advisory work, and domestic and international arbitration. Julie is well regarded for her attention to detail, efficiency, and extensive construction law experience.
In case CA 2022/70683, Barrister Julie Wright exercised high level of bias and prejudice, and through unprofessional conduct and perceived dislike of my wife and myself, looked for all possible avenues to cause excessive costs and ignore my evidence, whilst accepting Solicitor’s files without proper verification. Lay observers would view her actions as apprehended bias.
Barrister Julia Wright failed to analyse or take into account six different versions of alleged legal costs that Solicitor Adrian Mueller allegedly incurred in NCAT case SC 20/33352:
Barrister Julia Wright ignored facts about legal costs that Solicitor Adrian Mueller allegedly incurred in NCAT case SC 20/33352, in spite of overwhelming evidence presented to her by Lot 158 in 2023 and 2024 and knowingly decided not of take any action:
Barrister Julie Wright did not comply with Supreme Court statements at:
https://supremecourt.nsw.gov.au/practice-procedure/costs-assessment.html
Costs Assessment quantifies amounts under costs orders made by (NSW) courts and tribunals and determines fair and reasonable costs between clients and their lawyers in light of any costs agreements and relevant requirements of legal profession legislation.
Barrister Julie Wright had a simple duty and failed to accomplish it through deliberate, premeditated efforts to discredit available evidence, and failed to seek further information from Solicitor Adrian Mueller when strong suspicions existed for his incomplete submissions.
Her costs assessment was infected by numerous errors of law (fairness and reasonableness of the amount of legal costs).
Quote by Hon T F Bathurst AC QC, who in article “Professional conduct for barristers” in 2022 stated:
Rule 4 of the Legal Profession Uniform Conduct (Barristers) Rules 2015 (NSW) states that the Rules were made in the belief that barristers owe their paramount duty to the administration of justice and must maintain high standards of professional conduct. Although other principles are set out in Rule 4, these two principles, in my view, underpin the ethical obligations of barristers and, for that matter, any legal practitioner whether acting as an advocate or otherwise.
Justice McCallum publicly stated:
Extensive media reporting of allegations of criminal conduct is not a mischief in itself. On the contrary, it is appropriate to recognise that the media play an important role in drawing attention to allegations of criminal or other misconduct and any shortcomings in the treatment of such allegations.
Let public form an opinion about qualities of Barrister Julie Wright and her role as Supreme Court Costs Assessor:
As predicted, Office of Legal Services Commissioner declined to review the case on 5 December 2024 and even suggested that an owner should initiate District Court case themselves (more litigation and costs!?):
OLSC-case-CAS017997-review-request-denied-5Dec2024
Is that surprising? Not really. OLSC never replied to these complaints that confirmed they even provided false statements in past assessments and then used them as an excuse for "repeated issues already dealt with":
